16 str8 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 unless you wear a baggy green Refer to the Hussey and Rogers lbw's in Perth. It's just a part of the game. Link to comment
Zap_Brannigan Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 wow....... 2 ? Vs how many ? Link to comment
fineleg Posted February 5, 2008 Author Share Posted February 5, 2008 damn' date=' poor rohit[/quote'] yep, he was outdone by crook sanga and idjet rudi Link to comment
PaiN_KiLLeR Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 wtf i cant get this logic ... how does he become a cheat for appealing to the umpire? fineleg do you think indian players appeal only when they are totally convinced that the batsman is out? :haha: Link to comment
IndianRenegade Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 wtf i cant get this logic ... how does he become a cheat for appealing to the umpire? fineleg do you think indian players appeal only when they are totally convinced that the batsman is out? :haha: Exactly.... He is not a cheat for appealing.... Link to comment
beetle Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Sanga is fine. He did what most guys do ....the umpire got it horribly wrong for poor Rohit. Link to comment
MundaPakistani Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 I felt bad that Sanga was given out in the 190s in Test match in Aus. Now I feel the loser deserved it :finger: All bloody cheats... And oh, the Human element of umpiring and its charm :haha: the cheater tag is out again. Link to comment
Pancho Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 wtf i cant get this logic ... how does he become a cheat for appealing to the umpire? fineleg do you think indian players appeal only when they are totally convinced that the batsman is out? :haha: really well said. :two_thumbs_up: Link to comment
Gambit Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Is this thread supposed to be a joke? Every keeper appeals for 50/50, even for almost non existent caught behinds. Even Kumble appeals like a banshee for caught behinds 99% of the times but no one calls him a cheater. It's not as if Sanga dropped the catch and then claimed it(a la Latif/Clarke/Ponting). He was fully in his rights to appeal the way he did. Link to comment
Ram Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 It takes an extreme level of cricketing ignorance to label someone a cheat because he appealed for caught behind that was not-out. If this be the case, 9/10 of cricketers are unqualified cheats. I am just simply amazed ! Link to comment
talksport Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 I agree with OP.... Sanga doesnt deserve any more sympathies....Here Sanga appealed for decision , there Gilly appealed when Sanga was given out....Whats the difference... Link to comment
Pancho Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=374647 sharma fined. was asked in another thread why tendulkar is so widely respected down here in australia. part of the reason is even when he gets a questionanle decision, he always goes. doesnt make a scene. im sure this young fella will learn from that. Link to comment
IndianRenegade Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=374647 sharma fined. was asked in another thread why tendulkar is so widely respected down here in australia. part of the reason is even when he gets a questionanle decision, he always goes. doesnt make a scene. im sure this young fella will learn from that. He didn't make a scene.... he was shocked that he was given out & he walked back. Unlike pointing who argued with the umpire when Tendulkar was once called back after he was given out. Link to comment
beetle Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 I agree with OP.... Sanga doesnt deserve any more sympathies....Here Sanga appealed for decision , there Gilly appealed when Sanga was given out....Whats the difference... Sanga doesn't claim to be the saint walker and what not! Link to comment
Ram Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 No no...he will not be banging his head. He'll be in Yoga meditating and appreciating the beauty and splendor of the human element of umpiring and the charm it adds to the game. The Glorious Uncertainties of cricket. :D You never understand what i am saying/trying to say do you? :D Link to comment
fineleg Posted February 5, 2008 Author Share Posted February 5, 2008 ^^ MM, I've tried (posts and via PM too) to understand ur viewpoint...tell me if I'm wrong in what I understand as I state below: Below I'm paraphrasing, not ur actual quote MM thinks replacing umpires for the most part with technology will make the game devoid of an element of chance and human fraility, err human charm. Getting the right decision at that cost of removing human fraility, err charm, is not worth 'changing the game'? Did I summarize accurately? As per MM, getting right decisions is less important(atleast less important than not dimnishing role of human umpires), keeping the game with human umpiring still dominating is important. Right/No? (as per you) Link to comment
Ram Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Forget it, I am tired of repeating myself ! Link to comment
fineleg Posted February 5, 2008 Author Share Posted February 5, 2008 Ok, but is the above paraphrasing approximately right? yes/no will atleast be useful Link to comment
Ram Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 No, but dont ask me for explanation, please. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now